I have been playing the game for 2 days and generally like it. I have noticed that in the battles i play i only get 2 platoons of infantry plus support and the platoons are subdivided into small teams of 3 to 5 soldiers. If I remember correctly the earlier games of close combat allowed for alot more infantry in squads of sometimes 10 soldiers. It sometimes seems i have more objectives on the map than sodiers--well almost. Is there any way to combine these small teams or add more men to them when selecting them as the maps in panthers in the fog seem really large for for infantry/forces you are allowed.

The other thing i have noticed is when i move across the map using the mouse the view always darts to the side of the screen. this happens no matter what speed i set the mouse scolling to in the options screen. currently i have to use the arrow keys to scroll across the map to stop this which is kind of slow.

That said, i find the game challenging and a nice addition to the series.

The platoons are subdivided into a plt HQ team and 3 squads, each squad consisting of two teams (eg. Rifle team and BAR team). WW2 squads didnt operate as single units (ie. 10 men in a group). US squad doctrine was - "...two riflemen designated as scouts, and known as 'Team Able', would locate the enemy position. Then the squad leader would direct his BAR man, and three other riflemen, together designated as 'Team Baker', to lay down fire on the target. The remaining five riflemen and the squad leader himself - 'Team Charlie' - assaulted the enemy position..." (p.88 Beyond the Beachhead - The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy}

re: unit frontage - "Even a depleted German rifle company, consisting of no more than 50 men, commonly covered a 1000 yard front" (p.89) The largest PITF map (Hill 314) is 648x648 meters. PITF's unit density is fairly consistent with reality given that a battlegroups reserve units (forcepool) are considered to be in the immediate area, readily available for the next battle. IRL, small units might engage for days in an area of this size. Each battle (5 per day) is then focused on a few objectives (Victory Locations) rather than taking the entire map in a single battle. PITF's single battles are just introductions to the map - map recon so to speak. Only the operations and campaigns feature the strategic movement layer and multi-turn battles.

There are several other methods to navigate the tactical map: Click, hold and drag CTRL+SHIFT+drag Scroll wheel jump from team to team Double click on units in the Team List (F5) Click locations the Mini Map (F6)

With respect to frontage, there are averages and typical examples and then there are those moments when forces are concentrated to engage the enemy at key points. CC battles are very small, relative to real life, and they should reflect those rare concentrations of force rather than the 'norm' across the whole front.

As far as squad sizes are concerned, the doctrine you describe applies to training missions. Once actual combat is joined a Company Commander will just push his assets into the line of battle - all notions of Team Able and Team Baker are lost immediately. In fact, squads generally disappear and a battle is fought between clumps of men in varying numbers. They may not even be from the same Company. This is hard to replicate, I know, but going down the 'this was the doctrine' route will not deliver realism, IMHO.

I agree with the above, small teams are too fragile to do anything but let the enemy come to them. 50 men per 1000 yards would have trouble in any attack in my opinion. I believe the older games in the series allowed for more men on similar map sizes.

CC battles are small micro-tactical slices of life (and death) but to "reflect concentrations of force" suggests a a turn-based game scale where youre pushing unit icons around the map. The point about splitting squads into teams does reflect doctrine. What else would you base the design on? But in the heat of CC battle youll often find yourself fighting with miscellaneous 'clumps of men in varying numbers' without regard to squad or even Company affiliation. I find PITF battles are markedly representative of the small unit actions described in AARs like these from the 117th Rgt/30 Div concerning its engagements on 8/7/44.

The 50 men/1000yds frontage was defensive. CC3 had some 10 man Russian units but the 6 man half-squads in PITF are in line with preceding versions. The current maximum of 21 unit slots is a 40% increase over CC2-LSA. Easy enough using the LSA workbook as a template, and a spreadsheet app, to increase team sizes if you care to.

Samples from the 119th Rgt/30th Div AARs 10/10-16/44. What is notable is the emphasis on small, CC scale, even individual actions that are decisive to the outcome of Btn/Rgt plans. Large unit activities tend to get mentioned in passing while small units and soldiers get 'mentioned in despatches'.

The area of each map is typically in the 400m-600m range. The largest are under 650m across at the widest. So they're actually a bit smaller than many of the maps in previous games, while you have (in larger battle groups) more men than previously.

I think part of the issue is perception. The new maps 'feel' bigger because the visual scale has increased (8 pixels per meter as opposed to 5) so your field of view is somewhat reduced.

If you are playing on a higher difficulty level your teams will start at reduced strength (and you'll receive less replacements) so you're more likely to have to deal with 2-4 man teams as opposed to 4-6 man teams. So if you prefer stronger teams play you may want to try Line (or lower) difficulty level.

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire I think part of the issue is perception. The new maps 'feel' bigger because the visual scale has increased (8 pixels per meter as opposed to 5) so your field of view is somewhat reduced.

I have noticed this effect when I set a team to cross the map. They seem to travel a long way on the mini map quickly.

The lack of troops is something that is keeping me from playing it. The progress you make is so small against another human because you simply dont have the troops to do anything. Sometimes my squads are so small that I need to combine 3-4 two man squads to get one "full" squad and at the same time, my opponent has 4-5 man squads and he is defending.

It has been my experience with CCMT, that I generally prefer shooting, noise, and mayhem. Searching around a large map for unseen enemies, although interesting at times, is not always fun.

Nevertheless, I settled on 600 meters (square) for each and every map. Each deployment tile is 24 meters square and there are 625 possible deployment tiles on each map.

CCMT also uses small team sizes for the good guys, and some larger teams for the bad guys. At 600 meters square for a map, vehicle combat is cramped, while infantry battles are just about right. Any increase in size, makes vehicle combat seem more realistic, but makes infantry combat seem pointless. Even with a 960 meter map (the largest size in CCMT), mounting into haltracks or trucks for infantry transport is tedius, and not very realistic either. So, I generally use mountable vehicles for heavy weapon platforms that can move.

Since vehicle combat can sometimes be very embarassing for the AI, I attempted to optimize map size for infantry combat.

@xe5 - Frontages must take terrain into consideration. In addition, the number of victory locations and their placement, may require not just frontage but a defense in depth as well. I find that a 600 meter map swallows up WW2 teams, but seems more practical for modern infantry equiped with longer range weapons.

Unit frontage did take terrain density into account as well as other factors such as the US propensity for cautiousness in the attack, with a preference to rely on supporting arms. Defense in depth is abstracted into a BGs forcepool. Lose badly (FM breaks), give some gound (minus 1-3 VLs) and rely on depth (forcepool) to continue battle.

Part of the problem is that victory is solely based on map control - "...seems i have more objectives on the map than sodiers...". So there is a perceived urgency to defend every owned VL and seize every uncontrolled one. Plus it feels unfair that you can achieve a 20:1 kill ratio and still lose the battle due to the constraints of the timer or FM bonus. Better if the game also took attrition and non-VL map territory into account. The single battles in particular would benefit from an option for attrition-only victory conditions.

But its hard to find much merit in complaints about lack of force when max available teams has increased from 15 to 21 while map size has remained ~500m square. Ive been playing CC for 16 years and have trouble effectively controlling 21 teams. WW2 combat involved fire & manuever. An increase in team sizes and numbers of teams will trend toward less manuever because both sides can then protect their flanks and defend every VL. There is greater tactical complexity when the commander has to determine where to defend, what to attack and how to allocate his force accordingly.

A relevant post-war analysis of troop density on the attack by the CO of 120th Rgt/30th Div - "Too Many Men"

Well, as I said before, my preference is for much shooting and noise, etc. as opposed to protracted manuever. Also, I know this is PITF, but with CCMT there are no forcepools to create an imaginary off map defense in depth. And it goes without saying that effective frontage for a desert area would be much greater for the same formation occupying an equivalnet space in a jungle.

The maps in terms of pixel size is what has changed. Allowing structures, and other represented physical features to adopt the larger scale. So roads, houses, etc. If the solders are still moving at the pre PitF speeds, then the illusion of a larger map remains.

So with PitF what fills your monitor represents a smaller area than before (i.e. pre PitF map scale), hence it looks zoomed in until you get used to it. I am guessing about that because I don't have the game yet.

And I agree, I have a hard time keeping 15 units busy, and when I first started playing CCMT on its larger maps, I would always find myself attending to one unit, and then select and click a unit I knew needed attention on the other side of the map, only to find out the team had been wasted.

ORIGINAL: xe5 Part of the problem is that victory is solely based on map control - "...seems i have more objectives on the map than sodiers...". So there is a perceived urgency to defend every owned VL and seize every uncontrolled one. Plus it feels unfair that you can achieve a 20:1 kill ratio and still lose the battle due to the constraints of the timer or FM bonus. Better if the game also took attrition and non-VL map territory into account. The single battles in particular would benefit from an option for attrition-only victory conditions.

I like these points that you have made. The map requirements for campaign games seem to be at odds with single games (for me against the AI). And the AI is totally fixated on victory locations, since it is under the impression whoever controls the most VLs wins the game.

Ive been playing CC for 16 years and have trouble effectively controlling 21 teams. WW2 combat involved fire & manuever. An increase in team sizes and numbers of teams will trend toward less manuever because both sides can then protect their flanks and defend every VL. There is greater tactical complexity when the commander has to determine where to defend, what to attack and how to allocate his force accordingly.

Larger maps also change the tactics you must use. You can easily end up fighting 2 or 3 seperate battles on the same map. This is to be avoided as it is difficult to click back and forth on the map. Try to time your movements so the battles are done at different times. This doesnt happen much on smaller CC3/CC4 style maps.

The lack of troops is something that is keeping me from playing it. The progress you make is so small against another human because you simply dont have the troops to do anything. Sometimes my squads are so small that I need to combine 3-4 two man squads to get one "full" squad and at the same time, my opponent has 4-5 man squads and he is defending.

I'm all for realism, but one has to balance that with gameplay.

+1. And you also need to balance it with the fact that the Allies, at least, were able to keep on pushing more men into battle. In CC they can quickly lose a battle of attrition that they were never in danger of losing in real life.

xe5. WW2 combat did not primarily involve fire and maneuver. It primarily involved finding, fixing and then bombarding the enemy before mopping up at a tactical scale, with maneuver occurring at an operational scale. As a result (I forget the percentage) the largest proportion of casualties lost in combat during the war resulted from artillery fire.

Furthermore, most accounts of Normandy compare it more closely to WW1 on the Western Front than to the desert or the steppe. It was an attritional contest fought to the point where the Germans simply collapsed. Maneuver, even at an operational level, was fairly minimal.

Finding, fixing, bombarding is manuever and fire. You say potato, I say... An armored infantry btn CO recalled his unit's primary task as being the security escort for FOs. "Too Mny Men" and other sources peg casualties from indirect fire at 60-75%. CC wouldnt be much of a game if either side could hammer the other with 10-12 barrages per battle.

Before Cobra Normandy was a slugfest but, even then, any resemblance to WW1's static battles of attrition was faint. PITF occurs at the tail end of the breakout and was instrumental in the final collapse of the West Wall and the ensuing race to the German border.

quote:

"...the Allies, at least, were able to keep on pushing more men into battle. In CC they can quickly lose a battle of attrition that they were never in danger of losing in real life.

A BGs forcepool does allow it to keep pushing more men into battle but, unfortunately the Regimental BGs arent in danger of losing the battle of attrition. Yes a local attack onto a map can quickly be turned back but large BGs remain essentially intact because their frontage is always jut one company wide - those units in the active roster - where in reality regiments routinely operated with a two battalion front. So in any given game time period a regiment will only incur losses on less than a sixth of the force it would actually have engaged in battle. This is somewhat offset by PITF's higher battle tempo but Im finding that neither side risks running out of men or material. I'd like to see interdiction attacks cause forcepool losses in addition to movement block, and to have battle losses multiplied against forcepools proportionately. ie. if a battalion-sized BG lost 20 men in a battle it would then lose 20 men from its forcepool to represent the similar losses incurred by the other company the battalion would normally employ on its front.